The United States Supreme Court agreed on Friday to rule on the legality of US President Donald Trump’s controversial policy to limit the country’s first-born citizenship.
The justices are expected to hear arguments during their current term and issue a ruling by the end of June, Reuters reported. They did not set a date for the arguments.
What happened?
The justices took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked Trump’s executive order restricting birthrights.
A lower court previously ruled that Trump’s policy violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and a federal law codifying birthright citizenship rights in a class-action lawsuit by parents and children whose citizenships are threatened by the directive, Reuters reported.
What is the controversial first-born policy of US citizenship?
Trump’s policy allowed US agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the US if neither parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder.
Trump signed the order on his first day back in office on Jan. 20 as part of a series of initiatives he has pushed during his second term as president to crack down on legal and illegal immigration.
The 14th Amendment Debate
According to the report, the 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as a guarantee of citizenship for children born in the US.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as a result of the 1861-1865 Civil War, which ended slavery in the United States.
But the Trump administration has argued that the provision does not grant citizenship to the children of immigrants who are in the country illegally or whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as college students or people on work visas.
“This case will have enormous implications for the safety of all Americans and the sanctity of American citizenship. The Trump administration looks forward to making its case on behalf of the American people on birthright citizenship,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson was quoted as saying by Reuters.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs.
The administration argued that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” meant that birth in the United States was not sufficient for citizenship.
Citizenship is only granted to the children of those whose “primary allegiance” is to the United States, including citizens and permanent residents, he claims.
Such allegiance is established only through “lawful residence,” which government lawyers define as “lawful, permanent residence within the nation with the intent to remain.”
The Trump administration has said that granting citizenship to virtually anyone born on American soil has created incentives for illegal immigration and led to “birth tourism,” in which foreigners travel to the United States to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.
What did the challengers say?
Opponents said the Supreme Court had already settled the issue of birthright citizenship in an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which had long been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents were entitled to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Challengers also point out that Trump’s order violates a law passed by Congress in 1940, which was subsequently included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The measure codified the language of the Citizenship Clause and also adopted what was by then well established that the 14th Amendment promised automatic birthright citizenship.
Cases to date
The legal challenges appealed by the Justice Department involved one lawsuit filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon, and another filed in federal court in New Hampshire by plaintiffs suing on behalf of a nationwide class of people affected by Trump’s order.
In July, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, sided with the states.
Also in July, Concord County, New Hampshire Judge Joseph Laplante let the plaintiffs proceed as a class in that case, allowing Trump’s order to be blocked nationwide.
The Supreme Court on Friday decided to hear only the class-action lawsuit, not the one filed by the states.
The Supreme Court took up the case before a Boston-based federal appeals court had a chance to review it, signaling the seriousness of the legal divide and the need for the Supreme Court to settle the matter once and for all at the national level.
This year, the fight for first-born citizenship ended up in the Supreme Court already once.
After lower courts halted Trump’s order, the administration took the matter to the Supreme Court to challenge the power of federal judges to issue so-called “universal” injunctions that prevent the president’s policies from being applied against anyone, anywhere.
In a 6-3 decision supported by its conservative majority, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in June that blunted the power of federal judges but did not resolve the legality of Trump’s directive.
The decision left open the possibility for courts to grant broad relief to states or individual plaintiffs through class actions.
(With inputs from Reuters)
